Tenant's Claim Dismissed for Non-Attendance at Hearing
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal at Waitakere dismissed the claimant's application because they failed to show up for the hearing and did not ask for the hearing to be postponed or inform the Tribunal that the matter had been resolved.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's application is dismissed if they fail to attend the hearing without requesting an adjournment or notifying the settlement of the matter.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Tenancy Tribunal to make a decision, dismiss the case, or postpone it if a party does not show up for a hearing after being properly notified.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's application was dismissed due to non-attendance at the hearing.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal at Waitakere dismissed the claimant's application due to non-attendance at the scheduled hearing. The claimant did not attend the hearing, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal that the matter had settled.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5163132 1
[2025] NZTT 5163132
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT WAITAKERE | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI WAITĀKERE
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat G02, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
2. The applicant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
3. The other party, the respondent tenant, requested an adjournment due to a child being ill. The respondent provided a letter from the doctor in support.
4. The landlord was emailed by registry to provide their view on the request for an adjournment. The landlord did not respond.
[NAME]
03 June 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5163132 2
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5163132 3
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The respondent tenant requested an adjournment because their child was ill.
- The respondent tenant supported their adjournment request with a doctor's letter.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant's application was dismissed because they did not attend the hearing and did not request an adjournment or notify the Tribunal that the matter had settled.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the claimant's application for a resolution related to their tenancy agreement.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the claimant's application because they did not attend the hearing and did not follow the necessary procedures for adjournment or settlement notification.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the claimant did not attend the hearing and did not follow the required procedures for adjournment or settlement notification.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that failing to attend a hearing without requesting an adjournment or notifying the settlement of the matter could result in the dismissal of their application.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.